A split jury left Judge Mark Stanley no choice but to declare a mistrial Monday night in the sexual assault trial of a Norris City physician.

Dr. Johendra Chhabra was accused of having inappropriate sexual content with a then-23-year-old female patient at his Norris City clinic in December 2011.

The trial began Tuesday with jury selection and witnesses and evidence were presented to the jury through Friday afternoon. The jury was sent home over the weekend and closing arguments by the state, represented by White County State's Attorney Denton Aud, and the defense, represented by Benton attorney Bryan Drew, began Monday morning at a little after 9 a.m.

The arguments concluded just after 11 a.m. and the jurors, with instructions from the judge, retired to deliberate the case before 11:30 a.m.

Judge Stanley received, in total, five notes from the jury about every 90 minutes, each of the last four indicating they were hopelessly deadlocked. The judge sent them back notes reminding them of their instructions and to keep deliberating.

Finally, around 8:45 p.m., the last note was passed to the judge through the bailiff. The judge gathered the attorneys and the jury back in the courtroom and addressed the jury's foreman, asking if further deliberations could possibly result in a unanimous verdict. The foreman responded they were in disagreement and could not render a unanimous verdict.

The judge declared a mistrial, thanked the jury for their service and, following a brief meeting with the attorneys in open court in which neither had anything to offer, court was dismissed.

One juror that spoke with The Times after the mistrial said the final vote was two for guilty, one undecided and nine for not guilty. The juror, who requested to not be identified, said he was one of the nine that voted for not guilty. When asked why, he said there was not enough evidence to convict, and eight of the others agreed with him.

However, he said, the two jurors that believed the doctor was guilty could not be convinced by the others to change their minds.

State's Attorney Aud said in a written press release Tuesday morning, "Although I am not satisfied with the outcome, I respect the effort of the jury and the unwillingness of individuals on the jury to surrender their honest conviction solely because of the opinion of their fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. That demonstrates courage that is vital to our criminal justice system.

"Nevertheless, I swore an oath to seek justice. Therefore, I will reevaluate and reexamine the evidence before deciding what, if any, steps to take from here. Anyone accused or charged with an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty."

The Times offered defense counsel an opportunity for response, but as of The Times' deadline Tuesday morning, no response had been received.

Page 2 of 2 - In the closing arguments Monday morning, Aud reminded the jurors of the evidence in the case, including the testimony of the alleged victim and two other women who alleged the doctor had inappropriately touched them.

There was no dispute that the two had met behind a locked door in the doctor's private office inside his clinic. There was photographic evidence presented of an injury to the woman's lip. Hair that was the victim's was recovered from inside the office and forensic study revealed the hair was forcibly removed from her head.

During Drew's closing arguments, he told the jurors the witnesses were unreliable, citing criminal records and inconsistencies in their testimony. He said the detective that photographed the lip injury failed to find a wound on her head where the hair had been recently removed. He reminded the jury of the alleged victim's inconsistent testimony with other witnesses concerning the use of the doctor's private office to see patients.

He pointed to the defense witnesses who testified they were across the hall from the office and heard nothing indicative of an attack, nor did they see anything indicative of an attack when the doctor exited the office.

Drew also pointed to the receptionist's testimony that she talked with the alleged victim before the alleged victim left the clinic and said there were no apparent injuries.

He also reminded the jury about the defense witness that received a text from the alleged victim in which the alleged victim offered the witness $2,000 to lie to the police.

Drew told the jury the evidence indicated the alleged victim had set the doctor up for monetary gain. He said a civil suit brought against the doctor had been dropped because the attorney representing the alleged victim has withdrawn from the case.

Aud argued the alleged victim had decided not to pursue a civil judgment after originally filing the case because she had realized money would not solve any problems.